W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Abstract, portable and concrete choreographies ... a proposed solution??

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 22:09:06 -0600
To: david.burdett@commerceone.com
Cc: UCorda@SeeBeyond.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-id: <4095C5E2.3040608@sun.com>

david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote:

>Ugo
>
>This is odd. I see a small problem with a simple solution where I think that others see a complex one.
>
>Firstly, I am **not** suggesting that WS-CDL defines how you can automatically determine that two WSDL definitions are semantically equivalent as I agree it is fraught with problems.
>
>What I am suggesting instead is that people determine that WSDL definitions are semantically eqiuvalent. Here's an example ...
>
>I see a world where:
>a) People agree, for want of a better word, a pattern for exchanging messages, where the messages are identified at an abstract level, i.e. without reference to any WSDL definitions
>b) Later, people map end points in those patterns to their own previously existing WSDL definitions, or use the WS-CDL definition to define skeleton WSDL definitions from which they can then create the necessary code.
>c) Once the systems are built and connected, the same people use the WS-CDL definitions to automatically check that messages are being exchanged in the correct sequence.
>
>Is there anything wrong with this scenario?
>  
>
mm1: Other than it brings into question our basis premises regarding 
WSDL, not much other than it is recreating the wheel for technology 
capabilities that already exist.

>David
>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 00:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:57 GMT